IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i18p5085-d268060.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deep Uncertainty, Public Reason, the Conservation of Biodiversity and the Regulation of Markets for Lion Skeletons

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Coals

    (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney OX13 5QL, UK
    School of Animal, Plant & Environmental Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa)

  • Dawn Burnham

    (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney OX13 5QL, UK)

  • Paul J. Johnson

    (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney OX13 5QL, UK)

  • Andrew Loveridge

    (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney OX13 5QL, UK)

  • David W. Macdonald

    (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney OX13 5QL, UK)

  • Vivienne L. Williams

    (School of Animal, Plant & Environmental Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa)

  • John A. Vucetich

    (School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, USA)

Abstract

Public reason is a formal concept in political theory. There is a need to better understand how public reason might be elicited in making public decisions that involve deep uncertainty, which arises from pernicious and gross ignorance about how a system works, the boundaries of a system, and the relative value (or disvalue) of various possible outcomes. This article is the third in a series to demonstrate how ethical argument analysis—a qualitative decision-making aid—may be used to elicit public reason in the presence of deep uncertainty. The first article demonstrated how argument analysis is capable of probing deep into a single argument. The second article demonstrated how argument analysis can analyze a broad set of arguments and how argument analysis can be operationalized for use as a decision-making aid. This article demonstrates (i) the relevance of argument analysis to public reasoning, (ii) the relevance of argument analysis for decision-making under deep uncertainty, an emerging direction in decision theory, and (iii) how deep uncertainty can arise when the boundary between facts and values is inescapably entangled. This article and the previous two make these demonstrations using, as an example, the conservation and sustainable use of lions.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Coals & Dawn Burnham & Paul J. Johnson & Andrew Loveridge & David W. Macdonald & Vivienne L. Williams & John A. Vucetich, 2019. "Deep Uncertainty, Public Reason, the Conservation of Biodiversity and the Regulation of Markets for Lion Skeletons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:5085-:d:268060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/5085/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/5085/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Warren E. Walker & Marjolijn Haasnoot & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2013. "Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Vivienne L. Williams, 2015. "Tiger-bone trade could threaten lions," Nature, Nature, vol. 523(7560), pages 290-290, July.
    3. Vivienne L Williams & Andrew J Loveridge & David J Newton & David W Macdonald, 2017. "Questionnaire survey of the pan-African trade in lion body parts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-35, October.
    4. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.
    5. Rosaleen Duffy, 2013. "Global Environmental Governance and North—South Dynamics: The Case of the Cites," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(2), pages 222-239, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stanton, Muriel C. Bonjean & Roelich, Katy, 2021. "Decision making under deep uncertainties: A review of the applicability of methods in practice," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivienne L Williams & Michael J ‘t Sas-Rolfes, 2019. "Born captive: A survey of the lion breeding, keeping and hunting industries in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Ming Tang & Huchang Liao & Zhengjun Wan & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Marc A. Rosen, 2018. "Ten Years of Sustainability (2009 to 2018): A Bibliometric Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    3. J. J. Warmink & M. Brugnach & J. Vinke-de Kruijf & R. M. J. Schielen & D. C. M. Augustijn, 2017. "Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4587-4600, November.
    4. Ahmed, Farhana & Moors, Eddy & Khan, M. Shah Alam & Warner, Jeroen & Terwisscha van Scheltinga, Catharien, 2018. "Tipping points in adaptation to urban flooding under climate change and urban growth: The case of the Dhaka megacity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 496-506.
    5. Broitman, Dani & Ben-Haim, Yakov, 2022. "Forecasting residential sprawl under uncertainty: An info-gap analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Angelos Pantouvakis & Evangelos Psomas, 2016. "Exploring total quality management applications under uncertainty: A research agenda for the shipping industry," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 18(4), pages 496-512, December.
    7. Andri Ottesen & Dieter Thom & Rupali Bhagat & Rola Mourdaa, 2023. "Learning from the Future of Kuwait: Scenarios as a Learning Tool to Build Consensus for Actions Needed to Realize Vision 2035," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-25, April.
    8. Hurford, A.P. & Harou, J.J. & Bonzanigo, L. & Ray, P.A. & Karki, P. & Bharati, L. & Chinnasamy, P., 2020. "Efficient and robust hydropower system design under uncertainty - A demonstration in Nepal," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    9. Bethany Robinson & Jonathan D. Herman, 2019. "A framework for testing dynamic classification of vulnerable scenarios in ensemble water supply projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 431-448, March.
    10. Annelie Holzkämper, 2017. "Adapting Agricultural Production Systems to Climate Change—What’s the Use of Models?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-15, October.
    11. William Mobley & Kayode O. Atoba & Wesley E. Highfield, 2020. "Uncertainty in Flood Mitigation Practices: Assessing the Economic Benefits of Property Acquisition and Elevation in Flood-Prone Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    12. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    13. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    15. Günther Schauberger & Christian Mikovits & Werner Zollitsch & Stefan J. Hörtenhuber & Johannes Baumgartner & Knut Niebuhr & Martin Piringer & Werner Knauder & Ivonne Anders & Konrad Andre & Isabel Hen, 2019. "Global warming impact on confined livestock in buildings: efficacy of adaptation measures to reduce heat stress for growing-fattening pigs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 567-587, October.
    16. Seyed Ahmad Reza Mir Mohammadi Kooshknow & Rob den Exter & Franco Ruzzenenti, 2020. "An Exploratory Agent-Based Modeling Analysis Approach to Test Business Models for Electricity Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Luciano Raso & Jan Kwakkel & Jos Timmermans, 2019. "Assessing the Capacity of Adaptive Policy Pathways to Adapt on Time by Mapping Trigger Values to Their Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Mark Fabian & Anna Alexandrova & Yamini Cinamon Nair, 2023. "Coproducing Wellbeing Policy: A Theory of Thriving in Financial Hardship," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 2309-2330, October.
    19. Sierra C. Woodruff, 2016. "Planning for an unknowable future: uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 445-459, December.
    20. Fluixá-Sanmartín, Javier & Escuder-Bueno, Ignacio & Morales-Torres, Adrián & Castillo-Rodríguez, Jesica Tamara, 2020. "Comprehensive decision-making approach for managing time dependent dam risks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:5085-:d:268060. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.